2017 year end numbers are the best in 10 years too!

14,730,656 PAX which is a 5.5% increase YOY. Sometimes I feel like I accounted for about 2,000 of this number.

https://www.flystl.com/about-us/public-notices-and-reports

Looks like no adds from F9 today. A little disappointing to not get anything, but oh well.

Jshank83 wrote:

Sidenote: If STL is up 4.4% next year it will have its highest levels since 2003 (which was right before a big AA pulldown in 2004)

The big pulldown was in Nov 2003. They wouldn't have shown much of a hit in 2003, but 2004 would have been drastically different.

777PHX wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

Sidenote: If STL is up 4.4% next year it will have its highest levels since 2003 (which was right before a big AA pulldown in 2004)

The big pulldown was in Nov 2003. They wouldn't have shown much of a hit in 2003, but 2004 would have been drastically different.

That is what I was getting at, 2003 still had higher numbers (20 mil), 2004 didn't (13.4 mil), hence they would be the highest since 2003. By pulldown, I meant big drop in yearly passengers due to AA pulling routes, not the exact moment they pulled routes. I could have been more specific though.

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

I would have to say yes to that. Given that WOW is bringing TATL (sort of) flights back to STL in May, I think we could see BA bring in a LHR route on the 789. Fingers crossed anyways!

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3 ) and 6ish flights a day

stl07 wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV

Well they are using all their gates now at BLV. Actually had to add a 3rd mobile one, so I will give them credit there. I also wouldn't call BLV major.

But to answer the first question, it has to be pretty high up there. Most of the other airports that got dehubbed weren't as big as STL at its peak so most of them probably didn't fall as far. MEM has all the cargo to make up for any of thier losses. STL is only back to about 50% of its peak.

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

OzarkD9S wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.

I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.

Jshank83 wrote:

stl07 wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV

Well they are using all their gates now at BLV. Actually had to add a 3rd mobile one, so I will give them credit there. I also wouldn't call BLV major.

But to answer the first question, it has to be pretty high up there. Most of the other airports that got dehubbed weren't as big as STL at its peak so most of them probably didn't fall as far. MEM has all the cargo to make up for any of their losses. STL is only back to about 50% of its peak.

haha you beat me by responding before I was even done with my edit. I was comparing it to the facility size in proportion to originally proposed flights vs current service and use

Jshank83 wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.

I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.

I never understood why they keep A Concourse open and not just move DL, UA, and AC over to C or D since they could consolidate the security checkpoint and there's plenty of room.

stl07 wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3 ) and 6ish flights a day

haha you beat me by responding before I was even done with my edit. I was comparing it to the facility size in proportion to originally proposed flights vs current service and use

haha. You are correct. They peak at 6 flights a day couple days a week. Summer currently has them at 29 a week. To be fair one of the two runways is on the Air Force Base grounds, so I don't really count it. I consider them having one runway since they can't use the other one. I think the Air Force does use theirs some and they do have some cargo operations, so it is better than it used to be. It probably should still never have been built but at least they have what they have. For a few years they had no air service so getting close to 250K passengers this year is a pretty good step in the right direction.

They also are installing some sort of walls to help them increase cargo flights from 747s or something? I don't know. They have some big aspirations over there that I have yet to see fulfilled.

N383SW wrote:

I never understood why they keep A Concourse open and not just move DL, UA, and AC over to C or D since they could consolidate the security checkpoint and there's plenty of room.

I assume because no one wants to be in D and there isn't room to put them all in C. C is getting 4 more gates renovated soon, 2 which already get use frequently by AA on a per turn basis. I am guessing the other 2 will be there waiting for Jetblue, Spirit, or a European if they ever come. A is pretty much full right now. I think there is one somewhat usable gate that isn't leased, so it isn't like A has any dead space and no one from A is going to connect to anyone in any other concourse anyways.

N383SW wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.

I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.

I never understood why they keep A Concourse open and not just move DL, UA, and AC over to C or D since they could consolidate the security checkpoint and there's plenty of room.

Probably the distance. A is compact little concourse with gates on both sides and is closer to the new runway. I doubt if any of those carriers want to move to the ass-end of C.

funny you mention BLV since, as the old STL timers like me remember, they tried to close Lambert in the 70s and build an airport somewhere in IL (not at BLV though). By my count only LAX DEN DFW ORD ATL DTW MCO have more than 3 parallels though others have more overall capacity. Doesn't appear that there is much opportunity to regain its lost stature unless something crazy like AS and B6 merge and build a hub there.

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

funny you mention BLV since, as the old STL timers like me remember, they tried to close Lambert in the 70s and build an airport somewhere in IL (not at BLV though). By my count only LAX DEN DFW ORD ATL DTW MCO have more than 3 parallels though others have more overall capacity. Doesn't appear that there is much opportunity to regain its lost stature unless something crazy like AS and B6 merge and build a hub there.

The location was proposed in Waterloo, Illinois. Not that far from downtown St Louis. Of course that would have meant sharing revenues between MO and Illinois and back then...no effing way!

Why did all of the ground transportation info on Wiki get deleted? It's on every major airport and this knowledge is definitely "encyclopedic"

stl07 wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3 ) and 6ish flights a day

Interesting....I heard that the manager at BLV was approached about making BLV a base for G4, in exchange for expanding the terminal. But the airport declined...

stl07 wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3 ) and 6ish flights a day

I don't think it's drastically under used for what it is. It's certainly not STL with two almost entirely empty concourses and another one that's operating at a fraction of what it could be.

Jshank83 wrote:

They also are installing some sort of walls to help them increase cargo flights from 747s or something? I don't know. They have some big aspirations over there that I have yet to see fulfilled.

Last I heard, they were trying to chase some of the international air cargo traffic that uses ORD. Good luck with that.

Jshank83 wrote:

I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.

I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.

I'm fairly certain WN has a significant financial stake in T2 so it'll be a cold day in hell before they move out of there and C concourse certainly isn't an upgrade.

stl07 wrote:

Why did all of the ground transportation info on Wiki get deleted? It's on every major airport and this knowledge is definitely "encyclopedic"

Some person came through and essentially erased a full third of the page unilaterally without even discussing it with anyone (me in particular, since I've been doing most of the editing on the Wiki page for the past few months). Though I believe they did so in good faith, they did, as you said, delete a LOT of useful information without any pertinent reason, and so I'm trying to get rollback privileges in order to rollback the Wiki to a state before they deleted everything. I don't even necessarily disagree with some of their deletions, it's just unjustifiable to delete so much without discussion, a proper reason, or the ability to properly discern useful encyclopedic information - they've done the same kind of deletions on multiple other airport pages as well, so it's been noticed.

OzarkD9S wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

I am not really familiar with the layout of STL from the good old days, I was too young. But how far down the D concourse has WN gone? Is there any chance of re-opening it at the other end and connecting with C?

STLflyer wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

I am not really familiar with the layout of STL from the good old days, I was too young. But how far down the D concourse has WN gone? Is there any chance of re-opening it at the other end and connecting with C?

Actually yes, if you look on Max from the boarding area travel update twitter it said that they were trying to do something like that in the future. WN is not even half way down the D area I think

STLflyer wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

I am not really familiar with the layout of STL from the good old days, I was too young. But how far down the D concourse has WN gone? Is there any chance of re-opening it at the other end and connecting with C?

Pic from 2002


Pic now. As you can see they still have a ways to go down D. Not counting the International gates they only have 3 jet bridges in use by WN.


Here is a link to a gate diagram. It isn't up to date with WN taking over E34/36/38 or AC taking over A17. WOW is going to use E29. According to this there would be 14 gates left. I am not sure they could fit 14 737s in there though. I think (and someone who knows better is free to correct me) that there were a fair amount of smaller planes using them in the 1990's so they could fit in more gates/planes. E40 has a door but no jetway (and really no waiting area room).
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... m_2017.pdf

Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.

GSP psgr wrote:

Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.

They just remodeled T1 a few years ago after the tornado hit it (I think it was due to be remodeled anyways, but the tornado expedited things), I don't know about the underlying infrastructure, but I doubt there's been any serious talk about a replacement.

N383SW wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.

I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.

I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.

I never understood why they keep A Concourse open and not just move DL, UA, and AC over to C or D since they could consolidate the security checkpoint and there's plenty of room.

One word: concessions

STLflyer wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.

They just remodeled T1 a few years ago after the tornado hit it (I think it was due to be remodeled anyways, but the tornado expedited things), I don't know about the underlying infrastructure, but I doubt there's been any serious talk about a replacement.

They did remodel it all a couple years ago like you say. I can't see them replacing anything near term. There is no way they would tear down the landslide of T1 (at least the upper level). Because of this it somewhat limits options. The area between the terminal and runway isn't very big so I am not how they would redo it. I guess you could tear down B and fine a way to connect A and C through a new connecter and make a indoor plaza like area. Things are already tight to the taxiway there though.

One thing they could do, but I really don't see happening is tearing down the T1 parking garage, extend the terminal south, make the current landslide upstairs to be airside and put in concessions there. The new landslide would be where the current parking garage is located. You would probably even have room for a hotel. You could bury a new parking garage either under it (since it pretty much already is buried) or build it to the west of the current one. I am not sure what the height restrictions are on that area relating to landings on Runway 29 though (even though they are super rare at the moment).

Tucson, Norfolk, Hartford, Providence, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Albuquerque, Orange County etc etc etc, there's plenty that Southwest can add and bring back, and for now, there's still room to make things happen.

But, as this all pans out, the coming question now for St. Louis lovers is: would you rather start seeing new destinations or increased frequencies?

GSP psgr wrote:

Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.

Not in the current political climate. Most of the affluent tax base lives outside of the city which owns and runs the airport and the state won't be volunteering any money anytime soon.

The city has stated several times that it's cheaper to keep unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them.

On the subject of the glory days of STL, can someone help me out with something? Where was the exit from the US Customs and Border Patrol for international arrivals into the C gates back in the TWA days? The area where people picking up passengers off international flights would meet them I guess.

I remember going with my mom to pick up my sister from her class trip to Paris, and I'm 95% sure they flew nonstop, I'm also 95% certain we went through security into the C/D concourse (pre-9/11 days, so anyone could get through) and walked pretty far down, maybe in the C concourse, to meet her. BUT, that doesn't make any sense, because CBP can't exit into airside areas since passengers would have picked up their checked bags at CBP.

The only thing I can think of is it was some weird set up where arriving passengers would pick up their bags at CBP, re-check them just like connecting passengers, go through a security checkpoint to get back to airside C concourse, then claim their bags again at the landside T1 baggage claim. Or things were just way different in the pre-9/11 days. Or my recollection of things is wrong.

Anyone know how the international arrivals process worked in the main terminal?

777PHX wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.

Not in the current political climate. Most of the affluent tax base lives outside of the city which owns and runs the airport and the state won't be volunteering any money anytime soon.

The city has stated several times that it's cheaper to keep unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them.

That is absolutely ludicrous. It most certainly is not cheaper to keep the unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them. If that was the case, why have airports such as CVG, PIT and MCI demolished (or are planning to demolish) unused terminals/concourses and consolidate remaining ones?

STL is stuck in the past, and its pretty sad. The days of a large legacy carrier (TWA/AA) connecting hub are never coming back. It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?

Then again, Missouri as a whole has really neglected their infrastructure over the last decade or so, and the problem is getting worse by the day.

You don't know what's beyond the walls.

Tearing down a portion of a building or structure is great if has absolutely no affect on a number of things -

1. Plumbing and piping systems
2. Sewage system
3. Rain drainage systems
4. Heating and ventilation systems.
5. Electrical systems.

The list goes on and on of possibilities here.

ADrum23 wrote:

Then again, Missouri as a whole has really neglected their infrastructure over the last decade or so, and the problem is getting worse by the day.

Unfortunately, you are not wrong.

As for the airport, I read they are not tearing down D because of WN's constant expansion. I think they are trying to wait and see how much WN expands before deciding on how to take the airport to the future

stlgph wrote:

You don't know what's beyond the walls.

Tearing down a portion of a building or structure is great if has absolutely no affect on a number of things -

1. Plumbing and piping systems
2. Sewage system
3. Rain drainage systems
4. Heating and ventilation systems.
5. Electrical systems.

The list goes on and on of possibilities here.

Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.

At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.

STLflyer wrote:

On the subject of the glory days of STL, can someone help me out with something? Where was the exit from the US Customs and Border Patrol for international arrivals into the C gates back in the TWA days? The area where people picking up passengers off international flights would meet them I guess.

I remember going with my mom to pick up my sister from her class trip to Paris, and I'm 95% sure they flew nonstop, I'm also 95% certain we went through security into the C/D concourse (pre-9/11 days, so anyone could get through) and walked pretty far down, maybe in the C concourse, to meet her. BUT, that doesn't make any sense, because CBP can't exit into airside areas since passengers would have picked up their checked bags at CBP.

The only thing I can think of is it was some weird set up where arriving passengers would pick up their bags at CBP, re-check them just like connecting passengers, go through a security checkpoint to get back to airside C concourse, then claim their bags again at the landside T1 baggage claim. Or things were just way different in the pre-9/11 days. Or my recollection of things is wrong.

Anyone know how the international arrivals process worked in the main terminal?

I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure I have heard they had to go back through security to exit. I take that to mean they went through security and fed back into C then exited through C.

stlgph wrote:

Tucson, Norfolk, Hartford, Providence, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Albuquerque, Orange County etc etc etc, there's plenty that Southwest can add and bring back, and for now, there's still room to make things happen.

But, as this all pans out, the coming question now for St. Louis lovers is: would you rather start seeing new destinations or increased frequencies?

Anything that doesn't have 2 daily flights I would like to see more frequencies. I personally want more frequencies to SFO/OAK than any new routes.

I know WOW air is planning on starting service to STL in May 2018. Really Excited for British Airways to come to St. Louis as well!

Midwestindy wrote:

stl07 wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?

Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3 ) and 6ish flights a day

Interesting....I heard that the manager at BLV was approached about making BLV a base for G4, in exchange for expanding the terminal. But the airport declined...

Can you elaborate more? This article has confused me.

http://www.bnd.com/news/local/article188398674.html

"In 2018, the airport plans to expand the passenger terminal and rehabilitate airport access roads. In 2019, the airport will buy a snow broom and continue expanding the passenger terminal. And in 2020, the airport will expand the runway shoulder and build blast pads for large Boeing 747 planes."

14JDK wrote:

I know WOW air is planning on starting service to STL in May 2018. Really Excited for British Airways to come to St. Louis as well!

? Do you know something we don't?

Jshank83 wrote:

STLflyer wrote:

On the subject of the glory days of STL, can someone help me out with something? Where was the exit from the US Customs and Border Patrol for international arrivals into the C gates back in the TWA days? The area where people picking up passengers off international flights would meet them I guess.

I remember going with my mom to pick up my sister from her class trip to Paris, and I'm 95% sure they flew nonstop, I'm also 95% certain we went through security into the C/D concourse (pre-9/11 days, so anyone could get through) and walked pretty far down, maybe in the C concourse, to meet her. BUT, that doesn't make any sense, because CBP can't exit into airside areas since passengers would have picked up their checked bags at CBP.

The only thing I can think of is it was some weird set up where arriving passengers would pick up their bags at CBP, re-check them just like connecting passengers, go through a security checkpoint to get back to airside C concourse, then claim their bags again at the landside T1 baggage claim. Or things were just way different in the pre-9/11 days. Or my recollection of things is wrong.

Anyone know how the international arrivals process worked in the main terminal?

I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure I have heard they had to go back through security to exit. I take that to mean they went through security and fed back into C then exited through C.

Hmm, if my recollection is correct, then that's the only thing that would make sense. Sounds like a PITA for local passengers, but I thought I've read that PIT is like that too.

ADrum23 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

You don't know what's beyond the walls.

Tearing down a portion of a building or structure is great if has absolutely no affect on a number of things -

1. Plumbing and piping systems
2. Sewage system
3. Rain drainage systems
4. Heating and ventilation systems.
5. Electrical systems.

The list goes on and on of possibilities here.

Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.

At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.

Such systems regarding ventilation, heating, cooling, piping, etc. etc., are a lot more complicated than you think, hence why they are left in place all the time and usually have things worked around them to leave them in place. Come to New York City, a 10 minute walk through Times Square serves as an example of this.

Another major factor is code. Many times these older systems were built in accordance to the codes in use at the time, as those codes have changed as the government has become more and more regulation happy, these building structures and projects have been grandfathered in. Major changes to a portion of one structure requires the whole damn thing to be reworked which runs into significant challenges of cost, time, design, and other construction necessities, etc. etc.

So yes, in the case of Lambert airport, where the structure is one whole entire building, not satellite operations such as PIT, CVG, or MCI where the buildings sit separate, it's easier and better to leave everything in tact.

stlgph wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

You don't know what's beyond the walls.

Tearing down a portion of a building or structure is great if has absolutely no affect on a number of things -

1. Plumbing and piping systems
2. Sewage system
3. Rain drainage systems
4. Heating and ventilation systems.
5. Electrical systems.

The list goes on and on of possibilities here.

Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.

At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.

Such systems regarding ventilation, heating, cooling, piping, etc. etc., are a lot more complicated than you think, hence why they are left in place all the time and usually have things worked around them to leave them in place. Come to New York City, a 10 minute walk through Times Square serves as an example of this.

Another major factor is code. Many times these older systems were built in accordance to the codes in use at the time, as those codes have changed as the government has become more and more regulation happy, these building structures and projects have been grandfathered in. Major changes to a portion of one structure requires the whole damn thing to be reworked which runs into significant challenges of cost, time, design, and other construction necessities, etc. etc.

So yes, in the case of Lambert airport, where the structure is one whole entire building, not satellite operations such as PIT, CVG, or MCI where the buildings sit separate, it's easier and better to leave everything in tact.

Yes, I am well aware of the strict codes. I don't know how it is specifically in St. Louis, but I believe in a lot of areas once you shut down an older structure for a period of time and then want to resume using it, you have to bring up to code. However, I believe what you are describing ("Major changes to a portion of one structure requires the whole damn thing to be reworked which runs into significant challenges of cost, time, design, and other construction necessities, etc.") only applies to renovations of the existing structure, not demolishing and rebuilding.

I'm sorry, but you are not going to convince me that leaving the existing terminal in place (largely unused) and not doing anything other than minimal maintenance will cost less in the long term as opposed to a phased demolition/rebuild of the terminals. There are numerous examples of old structures that require renovations costing a ton of $$$ to bring it into a state of good repair and the powers that be find that its cheaper to simply demolish.

I don't really understand why STL is so attached to the existing terminal when other airports like it are redesigning and rebuilding to bring the airport into the 21st century and better serve passenger needs. STL deserves better.

That's nice, but regarding why Lambert's closed areas stays in tact as it is for now, I don't have to convince you, I'm right and that's the way it is. But continue to moan and complain all you want. Sorry Charlie.

ADrum23 wrote:

777PHX wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.

Not in the current political climate. Most of the affluent tax base lives outside of the city which owns and runs the airport and the state won't be volunteering any money anytime soon.

The city has stated several times that it's cheaper to keep unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them.

That is absolutely ludicrous. It most certainly is not cheaper to keep the unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them. If that was the case, why have airports such as CVG, PIT and MCI demolished (or are planning to demolish) unused terminals/concourses and consolidate remaining ones?

STL is stuck in the past, and its pretty sad. The days of a large legacy carrier (TWA/AA) connecting hub are never coming back. It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?

Then again, Missouri as a whole has really neglected their infrastructure over the last decade or so, and the problem is getting worse by the day.

Nonsense. It's far cheaper to pay a token amount in utilities every year to retain those concourses than it would be to demolish them.

ADrum23 wrote:

It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?

I already gave you the reasons. I don't know where you think you're going to find the hundreds of millions of dollars to completely rework KSTL, but it's not going to be from the city, it's sure as hell not going to be from the county, and it won't be coming from the state either.

The city is too occupied spending $51 million on some stupid trolley for the Loop to worry about the airport.

ADrum23 wrote:

Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.

What is there to maintain? The gates don't even have jetways.

ADrum23 wrote:

At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.

Lol, welcome to 1992. STL has been behind the times for a few decades now. Thanks for joining us.

"Lol, welcome to 1992. STL has been behind the times for a few decades now. Thanks for joining us."

Love it.

777PHX wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

777PHX wrote:

Not in the current political climate. Most of the affluent tax base lives outside of the city which owns and runs the airport and the state won't be volunteering any money anytime soon.

The city has stated several times that it's cheaper to keep unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them.

That is absolutely ludicrous. It most certainly is not cheaper to keep the unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them. If that was the case, why have airports such as CVG, PIT and MCI demolished (or are planning to demolish) unused terminals/concourses and consolidate remaining ones?

STL is stuck in the past, and its pretty sad. The days of a large legacy carrier (TWA/AA) connecting hub are never coming back. It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?

Then again, Missouri as a whole has really neglected their infrastructure over the last decade or so, and the problem is getting worse by the day.

Nonsense. It's far cheaper to pay a token amount in utilities every year to retain those concourses than it would be to demolish them.

ADrum23 wrote:

It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?

I already gave you the reasons. I don't know where you think you're going to find the hundreds of millions of dollars to completely rework KSTL, but it's not going to be from the city, it's sure as hell not going to be from the county, and it won't be coming from the state either.

The city is too occupied spending $51 million on some stupid trolley for the Loop to worry about the airport.

ADrum23 wrote:

Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.

What is there to maintain? The gates don't even have jetways.

ADrum23 wrote:

At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.

Lol, welcome to 1992. STL has been behind the times for a few decades now. Thanks for joining us.

Lol, you don't have to get snarky. I'm just trying to have an honest conversation. It genuinely surprises me that you guys are insisting that preserving (either traditionally or via a mothball) an old vacant building over the long term (especially one that has no historical value) would cost more than demolition. Until now, I've never heard anyone argue that, anywhere. The only arguments I hear about preserving older structures is maintaining historical and cultural value.

Let me ask you this, do you guys want STL to remain in its current condition? Or would you rather STL design and build a new, consolidated terminal with modern amenities to give arriving passengers a better impression of STL?

stlgph wrote:

I'm right and that's the way it is. But continue to moan and complain all you want. Sorry Charlie.

I'm not moaning, lol, I could care less. I'm just trying to have an honest conversation. As far as you being right, only time will answer that.

Rhonda's a contact in my cell phone.

Just sayin.

Keep in mind, Concourse C at CVG was removed because the structural integrity had diminished to the point where it would never be usable again, so maintaining it would have no purpose. STL's concourses are still usable and since WN keeps growing, it makes sense to keep the gates in case they are needed. While a new terminal at STL would be nice, that is a very expensive project and I doubt the airport wants to raise landing fees to pay for such a facility.

The only reason CVG is able to embark on so many construction projects currently is all the revenue gained from land leakage and cargo landing fees from DHL and Amazon. As Amazon continues to grow, there is a ton of money that is going to made, this is not a typical case for midwest airports. As for PIT, the new terminal design is nice, but it is going to be a huge financial strain and I imagine usage fess are going to have to go up. I am not saying STL can't build a new terminal, but IMO, it seems like the financials are just not there at the moment.